I think we must be finally seeing signs of recovery in our financial system!!!! At least, I think that must be the case.....! According to spokes-persons for the White House stated today that Fox News programming "is geared toward making money". GASP!!!!! How dare they??? (I can tell you are all thinking that!) But by the same token this MUST mean that all other news stations are NOT geared toward making money! So, at some point (I personally don't remember when.....must have been when I was deeply involved in why the current administration is bumbling so badly), the other news organizations must have become non-for-profit companies!!!! And I can only imagine that this had to be because of the hearty bounce-back of our struggling economy!
The article in todays Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Oct 19, 2009)"White House aidew trade fire with Fox News", starts by simply stating that "White House advisors pledged on Sunday to book administration officials on Fox News despite claims by the president's inner circle that the cable news network is a GOP mouthpiece whose programming 'is geared towared making money'.
From White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, to Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel to Senior Obama advisor, David Axelrod, they have all put the Fox News Channel squarely in their sights. Dunn called F
Monday, October 19, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
My Suggestion For Saints!
The Catholic church is celebrating the recent cannonization of a new saint, Beglium-born Jozef De Veuster, better known as Father Damien. For any of you not aware of him, Father Damien is best known for his work with leprosy patients in the colony of Kalaupapa, Molokai, Hawaii for 16 years before dying of leprosy himself. While I am not a Catholic (although I grew up as one, attended catholic schools, was an altar boy and yes.....even once considered attending a seminary to become a priest! Those of you that know me can stop laughing so hard now.....) I applaud their efforts to bring attention to anyone who is or has been a follower of my Savior, Jesus Christ and as such has given greatly of themselves to save and/or help others. While my firmly held belief is that those of us who love, trust and have accepted Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior are all saints according to the Bible, I do not seek to diminish the actions of the Catholic Church which decrees that one must be cannonized in order to become a saint. I also have great respect for the sacrifices and devotion of Father Damien.
In the cannonization ceremony, the Pope is cited as having said, "The new saints had heeded Jesus' call to the 'heroism of sanctity, sacrificing themselves for others without calculation or personal gain." That sounds good to me. However, while reading these words, it struck me that if this is the definition of what it takes to become a saint, then there a whole lot of people out there that aptly deserve to be cannonized as saints.
A shining example of this is United States Marine Corps Corporal Jason Dunham. The following is taken from the American Patriot's Almanac by William J. Bennett and John T.E. Cribb and is the entry for April 14th in the book.
"One day, as Marine Corporal Jason Dunham and his buddies swapped talk in their barracks in Iraq, the converstation turned to the best way to survive a hand grenade attack. The corporal suggested covering a grenade with a Kevlar helmet. 'I'll bet a Kevlar would stop it,' he said.
Dunham, raised in the small town of Scio, New York, was a 22-year-old with a natural gift for leadership. He'd been a star athlete, setting a Scio Central School baseball record for highest batting average. Now a rifle squad leader, he'd extended his enlistment to stay with his comrades in Iraq.
On April 14, 2004, Dunham was on his way to help a Marine convoy that had been ambushed in western Iraq when an insurgent leaped from a car and attacked him. As two Marines rushed to help wrestle the man to the ground, they heard Dunham yell, 'No, no, no-watch his hand!' Before they realized what was happening, Dunham threw his helmet and his own body over a live enemy grenade.
The sacrifice helped contain the blast but left Dunham mortally wounded. He died eight days later at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.
In January 2007 President George W. Bush awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously to Jason Dunham. 'Corporal Dunham saved the lives of two of his men, and showed the world what it means to be a Marine.' the President said. He was the first Marine to earn the Medal of Honor for service in Iraq.
Journalist Michael Phillips, author of The Gift of Valor, wrote that shortly before leaving for the Persian Gulf, Dunham told friends of his plans to extend his enlistment.
'You're crazy for extending,' a fellow Marine had said. 'Why?'
'I want to make sure everyone makes it home alive.' Jason Dunham answered."
While Jason Dunham saved two of his men through his completely selfless actions, it will be argued that Father Damien saved more. This may be true.....but is the point to count numbers or look at the selflessness of their acts? It is also safe to say that Corporal Jason Dunham completely fits what the Pope stated regarding the saints "heeding Jesus' call to the heroism of sanctity, sacrificing themselves for others without calculation or personal gain." How does the saying go???? "No greater love hath one than to lay down his life for his fellow man".....that others may live. It applied to Father Damien and it applies to Corporal Jason Dunham and so many others like him. Is there a Saint Jason??
In the cannonization ceremony, the Pope is cited as having said, "The new saints had heeded Jesus' call to the 'heroism of sanctity, sacrificing themselves for others without calculation or personal gain." That sounds good to me. However, while reading these words, it struck me that if this is the definition of what it takes to become a saint, then there a whole lot of people out there that aptly deserve to be cannonized as saints.
A shining example of this is United States Marine Corps Corporal Jason Dunham. The following is taken from the American Patriot's Almanac by William J. Bennett and John T.E. Cribb and is the entry for April 14th in the book.
"One day, as Marine Corporal Jason Dunham and his buddies swapped talk in their barracks in Iraq, the converstation turned to the best way to survive a hand grenade attack. The corporal suggested covering a grenade with a Kevlar helmet. 'I'll bet a Kevlar would stop it,' he said.
Dunham, raised in the small town of Scio, New York, was a 22-year-old with a natural gift for leadership. He'd been a star athlete, setting a Scio Central School baseball record for highest batting average. Now a rifle squad leader, he'd extended his enlistment to stay with his comrades in Iraq.
On April 14, 2004, Dunham was on his way to help a Marine convoy that had been ambushed in western Iraq when an insurgent leaped from a car and attacked him. As two Marines rushed to help wrestle the man to the ground, they heard Dunham yell, 'No, no, no-watch his hand!' Before they realized what was happening, Dunham threw his helmet and his own body over a live enemy grenade.
The sacrifice helped contain the blast but left Dunham mortally wounded. He died eight days later at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland.
In January 2007 President George W. Bush awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously to Jason Dunham. 'Corporal Dunham saved the lives of two of his men, and showed the world what it means to be a Marine.' the President said. He was the first Marine to earn the Medal of Honor for service in Iraq.
Journalist Michael Phillips, author of The Gift of Valor, wrote that shortly before leaving for the Persian Gulf, Dunham told friends of his plans to extend his enlistment.
'You're crazy for extending,' a fellow Marine had said. 'Why?'
'I want to make sure everyone makes it home alive.' Jason Dunham answered."
While Jason Dunham saved two of his men through his completely selfless actions, it will be argued that Father Damien saved more. This may be true.....but is the point to count numbers or look at the selflessness of their acts? It is also safe to say that Corporal Jason Dunham completely fits what the Pope stated regarding the saints "heeding Jesus' call to the heroism of sanctity, sacrificing themselves for others without calculation or personal gain." How does the saying go???? "No greater love hath one than to lay down his life for his fellow man".....that others may live. It applied to Father Damien and it applies to Corporal Jason Dunham and so many others like him. Is there a Saint Jason??
Monday, October 12, 2009
Time For Young-Aged Parks
I've looked at some great places to live in the past! Clean, a pool, clubhouse, nice streets, decent rent, nice views.....etc. But there was a problem when I went to apply for one of them. I wasn't fifty-five years or older. That's all, nothing else. I am a clean, quiet tenant, believe in privacy, could easily make the rent, and had no other factors that wouldn't cause any place else to accept me with open arms. The only thing was that I wasn't a senior citizen!
This stems from the fact that there are mobile home parks for "seniors only" and then there are "all-ages mobile home parks". But.....aren't we missing something? Where are the "Young-Aged Parks"? Maybe it's just me, but this smacks of age discrimination. Many places contend that the Fair Housing Act allows this. If this is so, then I think that fairness and equality should be extended across the board.
So this community over here doesn't want anyone under age 55 living there. Why you might ask? They say they don't want noise, screaming kids and traffic. According to Dan and Fanny D'Amello of Fremont Heights Senior Park in Yucaipa, CA there's more to it....there's camaraderie! "We look out for one another," she said. Sometimes the women take one another to the beauty parlor, residents collect their neighbors mail and newspapers when they're out of town and check on one another's welfare. "If we lived in a family park, that wouldn't be the case." REALLY??? Are there rules, regulations or restrictions in other places that would prevent that? No. Then there must be something else that would stop them from doing the same thing in a family park, right? Wrong again. It's simply a weak excuse for age discrimination.
Many cite noise and traffic. Ok, I'll go with that. I don't want kids necessarily screaming outside my windows all the time either. Nor do I want music blaring out at all hours of the night. And let's face it.......if they lived around people that were under 55, they would be constantly bombarded with Lynard Skynard, Kanye West or Taylor Swift (no "dissing" allowed here though) at all hours of the night, thousands of people cruising up and down the streets looking for trouble and all other manner of nuisances right? You might be saying that sounds ridiculous! And you'd be right, because it is. Just because people are under 55 years of age and haven't entered their golden years doesn't mean they would be doing all this. In fact, the vast majority of families are also concerned with peace and quiet, traffic and all the other "concerns" that are held as reasons for seniors only parks.
Hey!!!! I've got it!!!! Since it's legal (allegedly) for seniors to discriminate against others just because of age, then let's just make it fair across the board. Let's make "Young Parks" where persons are not allowed to reside unless you are LESS than 55 years of age!!!! Then it would be fair. Then the "younger people" wouldn't have to worry about senior citizens needing so much quiet, could drive down their streets at break-neck speed and could be as raucous as they want. Then their needs would be met too!
This is a great option. Have "Senior Parks", "All Ages Parks" and "Young Parks". Then everyone would have equal opportunity for age discrimination and the ability to have their age-appropriate needs met by each of these parks!!
You'll have to excuse me now while I go off in my "Middle-aged Park" and laugh uproariously about how ludicrous and fragmented our society has become!
This stems from the fact that there are mobile home parks for "seniors only" and then there are "all-ages mobile home parks". But.....aren't we missing something? Where are the "Young-Aged Parks"? Maybe it's just me, but this smacks of age discrimination. Many places contend that the Fair Housing Act allows this. If this is so, then I think that fairness and equality should be extended across the board.
So this community over here doesn't want anyone under age 55 living there. Why you might ask? They say they don't want noise, screaming kids and traffic. According to Dan and Fanny D'Amello of Fremont Heights Senior Park in Yucaipa, CA there's more to it....there's camaraderie! "We look out for one another," she said. Sometimes the women take one another to the beauty parlor, residents collect their neighbors mail and newspapers when they're out of town and check on one another's welfare. "If we lived in a family park, that wouldn't be the case." REALLY??? Are there rules, regulations or restrictions in other places that would prevent that? No. Then there must be something else that would stop them from doing the same thing in a family park, right? Wrong again. It's simply a weak excuse for age discrimination.
Many cite noise and traffic. Ok, I'll go with that. I don't want kids necessarily screaming outside my windows all the time either. Nor do I want music blaring out at all hours of the night. And let's face it.......if they lived around people that were under 55, they would be constantly bombarded with Lynard Skynard, Kanye West or Taylor Swift (no "dissing" allowed here though) at all hours of the night, thousands of people cruising up and down the streets looking for trouble and all other manner of nuisances right? You might be saying that sounds ridiculous! And you'd be right, because it is. Just because people are under 55 years of age and haven't entered their golden years doesn't mean they would be doing all this. In fact, the vast majority of families are also concerned with peace and quiet, traffic and all the other "concerns" that are held as reasons for seniors only parks.
Hey!!!! I've got it!!!! Since it's legal (allegedly) for seniors to discriminate against others just because of age, then let's just make it fair across the board. Let's make "Young Parks" where persons are not allowed to reside unless you are LESS than 55 years of age!!!! Then it would be fair. Then the "younger people" wouldn't have to worry about senior citizens needing so much quiet, could drive down their streets at break-neck speed and could be as raucous as they want. Then their needs would be met too!
This is a great option. Have "Senior Parks", "All Ages Parks" and "Young Parks". Then everyone would have equal opportunity for age discrimination and the ability to have their age-appropriate needs met by each of these parks!!
You'll have to excuse me now while I go off in my "Middle-aged Park" and laugh uproariously about how ludicrous and fragmented our society has become!
Let's Sing Kumbaya!!!
Well, I don't know about you but I have had a much more peaceful weekend knowing that our very own President Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mmm) has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to bring peace to the world and bring us closer to being a global community!
What's that you say? What did he do to get this award? Well, let me tell you! Hmmmm, now there's......hmmm, just give me a minute as I find the stuff he did to warrant this Nobel Peace Prize......(rummaging through mountains of paperwork and documents....)....just give me another minute......well, ok, you got me! I guess I can't find ANYTHING he's done that would justify this award!!! Hey, wait a minute...he's done a LOT of talking on TV shows.....! Does that count???
Well, like Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institute writes in the Oct 8, 2009 Honolulu Advertiser, the US may be more liked around the world, but not more respected! So is being "more liked" all it takes to win this prize now? If so, then the Nobel Peace Prize is worthless! What we have here in actuality is a person who has chosen to apologize for the "sins" of the United States (instead of pointing out all the "good" the US does), has emboldened our enemies and made our country less safe!
To back this up, I offer the following. First and foremost, the President of this country should be an outright patriot and as such has no business "apologizing" continuously to every nation in the world! While we may not be a perfect country in every way, we are the shining city on the hill, the greatest advocate for peace, liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness that the world has ever known. Why is it that millions (both legally and illegally) flock to our country every year? Is it because we are such a bad country with really bad people? Absolutely not! It's because this is the greatest country on the face of the planet and we offer freedoms, opportunity and justice on a scale unheard of in other countries! So why does our "elected leader" see it as his place to apologize for us? In addition, I challenge ANYONE to show me a country that has never made mistakes or wronged someone else! You can't......so again, why are we so bad???
Keep in mind also the following: that while our President has been "making nice with the other countries", the dictators in those countries have become emboldened to take actions that were never taken while George W. Bush was in office. Start with North Korea which has fired test missiles (short and long range) this past summer and again just today. Iran has thumbed their nose at Obama's peace-keeping friendliness while continuing to build their nuclear sites and openly state that they are all for the non-existence of Israel. You didn't see this during the Bush Administration!!! In addition, while trying to "talk" to other nations such as Cuba and Venezuela, Castro and Chavez continue to praise Obama for the great job he's doing while continuing to buy arms from Russia. Special envoys were sent to Syria but while they too praise the job Obama is doing, they don't stop funding terrorist groups! And then who could forget Obama's stellar decision to stop the missile defense plans in Eastern Europe, which puts Eastern Europe in potential harm's way with Russia. But Russia continues to send weapons to countries that simply don't like us! And all this got Obama the Peace Prize!!!!!! I guess it's safe to say that effectiveness has nothing to do with deserving this honor! And shouldn't we be at least a little concerned when dictators/leaders like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Ahmahdinajad (however you spell that....) and Vladimir Putin praise our own President for the job he's doing? But hey, at least we feel safer don't we???
What's that you say? What did he do to get this award? Well, let me tell you! Hmmmm, now there's......hmmm, just give me a minute as I find the stuff he did to warrant this Nobel Peace Prize......(rummaging through mountains of paperwork and documents....)....just give me another minute......well, ok, you got me! I guess I can't find ANYTHING he's done that would justify this award!!! Hey, wait a minute...he's done a LOT of talking on TV shows.....! Does that count???
Well, like Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institute writes in the Oct 8, 2009 Honolulu Advertiser, the US may be more liked around the world, but not more respected! So is being "more liked" all it takes to win this prize now? If so, then the Nobel Peace Prize is worthless! What we have here in actuality is a person who has chosen to apologize for the "sins" of the United States (instead of pointing out all the "good" the US does), has emboldened our enemies and made our country less safe!
To back this up, I offer the following. First and foremost, the President of this country should be an outright patriot and as such has no business "apologizing" continuously to every nation in the world! While we may not be a perfect country in every way, we are the shining city on the hill, the greatest advocate for peace, liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness that the world has ever known. Why is it that millions (both legally and illegally) flock to our country every year? Is it because we are such a bad country with really bad people? Absolutely not! It's because this is the greatest country on the face of the planet and we offer freedoms, opportunity and justice on a scale unheard of in other countries! So why does our "elected leader" see it as his place to apologize for us? In addition, I challenge ANYONE to show me a country that has never made mistakes or wronged someone else! You can't......so again, why are we so bad???
Keep in mind also the following: that while our President has been "making nice with the other countries", the dictators in those countries have become emboldened to take actions that were never taken while George W. Bush was in office. Start with North Korea which has fired test missiles (short and long range) this past summer and again just today. Iran has thumbed their nose at Obama's peace-keeping friendliness while continuing to build their nuclear sites and openly state that they are all for the non-existence of Israel. You didn't see this during the Bush Administration!!! In addition, while trying to "talk" to other nations such as Cuba and Venezuela, Castro and Chavez continue to praise Obama for the great job he's doing while continuing to buy arms from Russia. Special envoys were sent to Syria but while they too praise the job Obama is doing, they don't stop funding terrorist groups! And then who could forget Obama's stellar decision to stop the missile defense plans in Eastern Europe, which puts Eastern Europe in potential harm's way with Russia. But Russia continues to send weapons to countries that simply don't like us! And all this got Obama the Peace Prize!!!!!! I guess it's safe to say that effectiveness has nothing to do with deserving this honor! And shouldn't we be at least a little concerned when dictators/leaders like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Ahmahdinajad (however you spell that....) and Vladimir Putin praise our own President for the job he's doing? But hey, at least we feel safer don't we???
Friday, October 2, 2009
Sexual Tensions???
I haven't written in this blog for almost a month and have really missed it! However, today I feel compelled to address an issue that is enough to drive almost anyone crazy who has any common sense at all!!!
Let's talk sex!!! (I bet that got your attention huh?) Or actually, to be more accurate, let's talk about illegal sex (rape) and illicit sex (affairs). First out the chute there's Roman Polansky who was convicted of drugging and raping a 13 year old girl over 30 years ago!!! He served 42 days in jail while awaiting trial and on the day he was to be sentenced and could have gotten up to three years in prison, he fled the country. Since then he has been living like a king in France and has never been brought to justice. Now that he is once again behind bars and fighting extradition back to the United States, he is being backed by the "Hollywood intellectual elites".....like Whoopi Goldberg, Debra Winger and many others!!!! They are actually petitioning to have him released and be allowed to remain a free man because "It was SO long ago", "The victim forgives him and wants him left alone", "He suffered so much as a young man" and "He's such a great producer!" for example. Does anyone else see something wrong, very wrong with this picture?
The fact of the matter is that he is a felon, a fugitive convicted of drugging and raping a 13 year old girl!!!! All the reasons that the "Hollywood intellectual elites" use as justification for letting him go mean absolutely NOTHING! I am impressed that the victim herself forgives him and wants him left alone at this point, but that doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Also keep in mind that he has never expressed any kind of remorse for his crime. He has simply flipped our great country and legal system the "middle finger", and lived like a king amid riches, fame and glory!
So with all this in mind, I submit the following: If it were me or any other "average joe" who had done this, fled and was finally captured over 30 years later, there would be NO public outcry from Hollywood for my or our release! There would be nothing on the news channels championing my or our actions. There would only be a solid outcry of "At last......!" and "Bring him back and let him rot in prison for the rest of his life". Isn't this what should be happening regarding Roman Polansky???
I have a 14 year old daughter whom I love more than life itself. I can't imagine having had a sleaze-bag like Polansky drug and rape her more than a year ago and then being ok with him leaving the country to live like a king, thumb his nose at the crime he's committed and leaving my daughter with the scars that would most certainly result from his actions! Perhaps Whoopi Goldberg and all the others should put themselves in that position and ask how they would feel if the victim had been THEIR daughter??? I would be willing to bet that their take on the situation would be a complete reversal of what they are saying now.
While this is going on, another slime-bag is being tried for continually raping Elizabeth Smart numerous times a day after kidnapping her at the age of 9 years old. Obviously this guy is far worse than Polansky, but they committed the same crime sexually. By the way, I stand in awe of the strength of Elizabeth Smart for testifying as she has done with the whole world watching. I also feel great sorrow for the parents, family and friends of Ms. Smart as they continue to find more about the heart-breaking treatment of their daughter.
Lastly, late-night talk show host David Letterman has admitted to having a number of sexual affairs with members of his staff and then being blackmailed for it. Let me make it perfectly clear that I do not condone the blackmail and feel the culprit should pay the appropriate penalty for doing so. However, I would like to point out the unbelievable hypocrisy of Letterman. This is a very liberal person who has taken any and every opportunity to tear up any conservative who has tread into the waters of sexual affairs. He has demeaned, belittled and insulted them at every opportunity.......all while doing the very same thing himself!!!! Is that not the very height of hypocrisy???? And is the media focusing on the affairs or his hypocrisy in this situation??? No. They are focusing only on the blackmail portion with the hopes of making all of American feel sorry for Letterman and view him only as a victim. Do I feel that way? Not so much....!
So, with all this in mind, we have three guys involved with sexual situations that are muddying the waters around them. Granted, what Letterman did is not illegal but it is viewed by most Americans as immoral. However, two of these men concerned have the media and Hollywood trying to sway the court of opinion in such a way as to paint them as victims when they are not. All of them have either broken the law and as such should penalized appropriately or have done the very same actions that they have vehemently condemned others for. Bottom line: Polansky and the Smart rapist should go to prison and Letterman should stop being a hypocrite and attacking others for actions he himself is guilty of! 'Nuff said!
Let's talk sex!!! (I bet that got your attention huh?) Or actually, to be more accurate, let's talk about illegal sex (rape) and illicit sex (affairs). First out the chute there's Roman Polansky who was convicted of drugging and raping a 13 year old girl over 30 years ago!!! He served 42 days in jail while awaiting trial and on the day he was to be sentenced and could have gotten up to three years in prison, he fled the country. Since then he has been living like a king in France and has never been brought to justice. Now that he is once again behind bars and fighting extradition back to the United States, he is being backed by the "Hollywood intellectual elites".....like Whoopi Goldberg, Debra Winger and many others!!!! They are actually petitioning to have him released and be allowed to remain a free man because "It was SO long ago", "The victim forgives him and wants him left alone", "He suffered so much as a young man" and "He's such a great producer!" for example. Does anyone else see something wrong, very wrong with this picture?
The fact of the matter is that he is a felon, a fugitive convicted of drugging and raping a 13 year old girl!!!! All the reasons that the "Hollywood intellectual elites" use as justification for letting him go mean absolutely NOTHING! I am impressed that the victim herself forgives him and wants him left alone at this point, but that doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that he should not be held accountable for his actions. Also keep in mind that he has never expressed any kind of remorse for his crime. He has simply flipped our great country and legal system the "middle finger", and lived like a king amid riches, fame and glory!
So with all this in mind, I submit the following: If it were me or any other "average joe" who had done this, fled and was finally captured over 30 years later, there would be NO public outcry from Hollywood for my or our release! There would be nothing on the news channels championing my or our actions. There would only be a solid outcry of "At last......!" and "Bring him back and let him rot in prison for the rest of his life". Isn't this what should be happening regarding Roman Polansky???
I have a 14 year old daughter whom I love more than life itself. I can't imagine having had a sleaze-bag like Polansky drug and rape her more than a year ago and then being ok with him leaving the country to live like a king, thumb his nose at the crime he's committed and leaving my daughter with the scars that would most certainly result from his actions! Perhaps Whoopi Goldberg and all the others should put themselves in that position and ask how they would feel if the victim had been THEIR daughter??? I would be willing to bet that their take on the situation would be a complete reversal of what they are saying now.
While this is going on, another slime-bag is being tried for continually raping Elizabeth Smart numerous times a day after kidnapping her at the age of 9 years old. Obviously this guy is far worse than Polansky, but they committed the same crime sexually. By the way, I stand in awe of the strength of Elizabeth Smart for testifying as she has done with the whole world watching. I also feel great sorrow for the parents, family and friends of Ms. Smart as they continue to find more about the heart-breaking treatment of their daughter.
Lastly, late-night talk show host David Letterman has admitted to having a number of sexual affairs with members of his staff and then being blackmailed for it. Let me make it perfectly clear that I do not condone the blackmail and feel the culprit should pay the appropriate penalty for doing so. However, I would like to point out the unbelievable hypocrisy of Letterman. This is a very liberal person who has taken any and every opportunity to tear up any conservative who has tread into the waters of sexual affairs. He has demeaned, belittled and insulted them at every opportunity.......all while doing the very same thing himself!!!! Is that not the very height of hypocrisy???? And is the media focusing on the affairs or his hypocrisy in this situation??? No. They are focusing only on the blackmail portion with the hopes of making all of American feel sorry for Letterman and view him only as a victim. Do I feel that way? Not so much....!
So, with all this in mind, we have three guys involved with sexual situations that are muddying the waters around them. Granted, what Letterman did is not illegal but it is viewed by most Americans as immoral. However, two of these men concerned have the media and Hollywood trying to sway the court of opinion in such a way as to paint them as victims when they are not. All of them have either broken the law and as such should penalized appropriately or have done the very same actions that they have vehemently condemned others for. Bottom line: Polansky and the Smart rapist should go to prison and Letterman should stop being a hypocrite and attacking others for actions he himself is guilty of! 'Nuff said!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
We Need More Like Harry!
As you might know, I work on the historic Battleship Missouri located in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The following was posted on-board lately and I felt it was well worth repeating here.
Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other Presidents this country has had. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.
The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence, Missouri. His wife had inherited the house from her mother and other than their years at the White House, they lived their entire lives there.
When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an "allowance" and later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.
After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.
When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale".
Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."
As President, he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food. Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale.
Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, "My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!"
I say we dig him up and clone him!!!! If only we had politicians and presidents now that had even 1% of the integrity and humility of President Truman, this country would be in a lot better shape! He truly understood that being a politician and/or president made him a public servant to the people of this great country, not the other way around. God bless you Harry Truman!
Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other Presidents this country has had. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.
The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence, Missouri. His wife had inherited the house from her mother and other than their years at the White House, they lived their entire lives there.
When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an "allowance" and later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.
After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.
When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale".
Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."
As President, he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food. Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale.
Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, "My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!"
I say we dig him up and clone him!!!! If only we had politicians and presidents now that had even 1% of the integrity and humility of President Truman, this country would be in a lot better shape! He truly understood that being a politician and/or president made him a public servant to the people of this great country, not the other way around. God bless you Harry Truman!
No Tears for Van Jones
Let there be a celebration in the streets......the pressure from the citizens of this country has had a positive effect! Today we were greeted with the joyous news that Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar has decided to step aside and resign his position. That my friends is GREAT news!!! This was a person with ideals that are 180degrees from what we need in this country.
Van Jones is a self-admitted Communist and anti-capitalist, willingly signed a petition seeking an investigation into 9/11 because he believes the government was behind it and called Republicans "A@^$%holes" at a public forum in Berkeley earlier this year. He has recently come out apologizing for these things saying he really didn't believe them and was sorry for his remarks. I for one though don't believe a word he has to say in that respect. He has admitted personally to being a communist and anti-capitalist. As far as the 9/11 conspiracy, we have all had clipboards thrust at us for all kinds of issues to sign......but I am willing to bet that if you are like me, you don't sign unless you believe the same way. Given the education level of Van Jones, I would expect no less from him. To think otherwise is ludicrous! As for his remarks regarding Republicans, he said it because that's what he thinks and he knew he could get away with it at a like-minded forum of kool-aid drinkers in Berkeley. As far as his apologies, it is readily apparent that he was willing to apologize simply because he wanted to "keep his job"! Bottom line here is that he said what he said because that is what he believes! A false and insincere apology doesn't change that.
The aggravating thing about people like Van Jones is that they are radical people with radical ideas that are more than willing to tear down the very same country and system that gave them the opportunity and freedom to get to where they are now (VERY much like the mush-headed liberal actors who just thrive on deriding conservatives....). In addition, these liberal elitists consider themselves to be better and smarter than us, the average American citizen. They fail to realize that the average American is pretty darn smart.....and resourceful too. We aren't as blind and dumb as they think (and hope) we are.
So now, Van Jones is gone and calling the opposition to him a "vicious smear campaign against me." Perhaps he should take a good, hard look at himself and listen to the words of Jeremiah Wright(Obama's religious mentor)when he said...."The chickens are coming home to roost!!!!"
Van Jones is a self-admitted Communist and anti-capitalist, willingly signed a petition seeking an investigation into 9/11 because he believes the government was behind it and called Republicans "A@^$%holes" at a public forum in Berkeley earlier this year. He has recently come out apologizing for these things saying he really didn't believe them and was sorry for his remarks. I for one though don't believe a word he has to say in that respect. He has admitted personally to being a communist and anti-capitalist. As far as the 9/11 conspiracy, we have all had clipboards thrust at us for all kinds of issues to sign......but I am willing to bet that if you are like me, you don't sign unless you believe the same way. Given the education level of Van Jones, I would expect no less from him. To think otherwise is ludicrous! As for his remarks regarding Republicans, he said it because that's what he thinks and he knew he could get away with it at a like-minded forum of kool-aid drinkers in Berkeley. As far as his apologies, it is readily apparent that he was willing to apologize simply because he wanted to "keep his job"! Bottom line here is that he said what he said because that is what he believes! A false and insincere apology doesn't change that.
The aggravating thing about people like Van Jones is that they are radical people with radical ideas that are more than willing to tear down the very same country and system that gave them the opportunity and freedom to get to where they are now (VERY much like the mush-headed liberal actors who just thrive on deriding conservatives....). In addition, these liberal elitists consider themselves to be better and smarter than us, the average American citizen. They fail to realize that the average American is pretty darn smart.....and resourceful too. We aren't as blind and dumb as they think (and hope) we are.
So now, Van Jones is gone and calling the opposition to him a "vicious smear campaign against me." Perhaps he should take a good, hard look at himself and listen to the words of Jeremiah Wright(Obama's religious mentor)when he said...."The chickens are coming home to roost!!!!"
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Hypocrisy in Massachussets
So the "Lion of the Senate", as he was called, is now history! As you all have no doubt heard, Sen. Edward Kennedy died last night, leaving his Senate seat open. And already the Democrats have mobilized to ensure that this seat doesn't go to a (gasp.....dare I even say it...?) Republican! No kidding......! Already, the Associated Press is reporting that Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick would support a change in state law allowing him to appoint a temporary replacement.
Currently, the state of Massachusetts is one of a handful of states that requires an election to fill seats that become vacant as a result of death or several other actions. Now HERE is the interesting part!!!! This law was only changed 5 years ago in 2004 when Mitt Romney (R) was governor!!! Before the change in 2004, the Governor of the state WAS allowed to appoint a replacement. But when Sen. John Kerry (D) ran for President, they changed it so that an election needed to be held. Well, now that the Governor is a Democrat and they have a seat to fill, they want to "go back to the way it was"!
Isn't this the height of hypocrisy??? Let's take a look at how this discussion probably went:
Democrats (2004): "Hey, John Kerry's seat is open! We need to make some changes right now or Mitt Romney may install a Republican in his place. That wouldn't be fair would it? It should be done by election! (We CAN win an election and install a Democrat if we do this, right?)"
At this point, the law is changed and an election is now required, removing the ability from Mitt Romney to appoint a Republican in place of John Kerry.
Fast forward to today.......
Democrats (2009): "Hey, Ted Kennedy's seat is open! We need to make some changes right now or our guy in the Governor's seat won't be able to appoint a Democrat to fill the seat and stop a Republican from getting it if we have an election. That wouldn't be fair would it? It should be a position appointed by the Governor! (We probably wouldn't win the election right now and get a Deomcrat would we? What with the economy the way it is, people being upset with the government health care plan we're trying to ram down their throats that we can't even pay for....they might elect a Republican right???)
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here???? The Democrats want to change the playbook every time it doesn't suit them perfectly. I think the people of Massachusetts should stand up and stop this unevening of the playing field. What do you think?
Currently, the state of Massachusetts is one of a handful of states that requires an election to fill seats that become vacant as a result of death or several other actions. Now HERE is the interesting part!!!! This law was only changed 5 years ago in 2004 when Mitt Romney (R) was governor!!! Before the change in 2004, the Governor of the state WAS allowed to appoint a replacement. But when Sen. John Kerry (D) ran for President, they changed it so that an election needed to be held. Well, now that the Governor is a Democrat and they have a seat to fill, they want to "go back to the way it was"!
Isn't this the height of hypocrisy??? Let's take a look at how this discussion probably went:
Democrats (2004): "Hey, John Kerry's seat is open! We need to make some changes right now or Mitt Romney may install a Republican in his place. That wouldn't be fair would it? It should be done by election! (We CAN win an election and install a Democrat if we do this, right?)"
At this point, the law is changed and an election is now required, removing the ability from Mitt Romney to appoint a Republican in place of John Kerry.
Fast forward to today.......
Democrats (2009): "Hey, Ted Kennedy's seat is open! We need to make some changes right now or our guy in the Governor's seat won't be able to appoint a Democrat to fill the seat and stop a Republican from getting it if we have an election. That wouldn't be fair would it? It should be a position appointed by the Governor! (We probably wouldn't win the election right now and get a Deomcrat would we? What with the economy the way it is, people being upset with the government health care plan we're trying to ram down their throats that we can't even pay for....they might elect a Republican right???)
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here???? The Democrats want to change the playbook every time it doesn't suit them perfectly. I think the people of Massachusetts should stand up and stop this unevening of the playing field. What do you think?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Transparency in Terms??
Have you ever watched something implode on itself??? I think right now all you have to do to see this is to watch the writhing of the Obama administration as they try to find a way to force "their health care plan" down our throats. From Obama mincing words about the "public option" to Health and Human Services Katherine Sebelius stating that "single payer health care is not in their plans" to White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs putting his own spin on things, it is apparent there is some splintering going on.
I personally think they are running scared. I don't believe they EVER thought they would have this tough a time getting their health care plan through and the publc outpouring against the "public option" is un-nerving to them. But while they are attempting to keep it together, I also am struck with the feeling that the Obama administration is a very smart "bully" in a way.
Let me explain! When you watch Obama, you can easily tell that he thinks he is smarter than everyone else. You can see it in the way he holds himself, his gestures and the way he talks. He is arrogant.....and very clever. He desperately wants to be "the president that finally and successfully brought about health care reform" and he is willing to do whatever he needs to do to capture this title. (This by the way, would be another way for him to "stick it" to his former opponent Hillary Clinton who tried hard to be the one that brought that about.)
When looking at his actions and those of the administration to ram this through, you need to aak yourself if their actions are "transparent" like they say they would be. In reality, the answer is NO. Starting with the "public option", there are problems. Watching Sean Hannity last night, there was a guest who I thought put it perfectly. He said, "The public option is really a 'government option'. By terming as a "public option", it makes the general population feel more comfortable with it. It's amazing what a difference just changing a word can make. So now, the Obama administration has this outpouring of resistance against their plan and it bothers them greatly. They don't like it and with the media's help they try to depict the attendees at the town hall meetings as uninformed, uneducated, thugs, astro-turf, irrelevant etc. While doing this, they float a trial balloon to see if the word "co-op" will have a better effect.
Do you see what's happening here? Look at the fact that there are congressional representatives out there that publicly state they will vote for the health care bill REGARDLESS of what their own constituents want.....people who actually were responsible for putting them in place to represent them to begin with. Couple this with the fact that the Obama administration is bound and determined to get what THEY want and you start to see a bully emerging. Remember, this administration thinks we are stupid and they are not. So, now they think that by changing the term "public option" to "co-op" we will all feel better and will allow them get their way. After all, it's a better sounding term than "public option" right?
What is a co-op??? It's defined as a "jointly owned commercial enterprise that produces and distributes goods and services and is run for the benefits of it's owners". So let's say we have a "co-op". Who are the owners going to be? Not the insurance companies because the idea of the "co-op" is to supposedly provide competition with the insurance companies. Then who are the owners? They are YOU, the American people.....or more specifically, the GOVERNMENT since they will be the ones running it. Remember the definition??? It's run for the benefit of the owners. So in this case, the owners, "the "government", will run it for THEIR benefit which actually makes a co-op a "government sponsored enterprise" better known as a GSE.
Want to know how well a GSE can do??? Just take a look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.....they are GSE's. They also have gotten BILLIONS of dollars from us, the taxpaying citizens of this country to keep them afloat. Is that how you want your health care to be run as well???? Barney Frank who backs the health care measures being pushed by this administration also was also tied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who recieved those billions of dollars noted above. Remember.....he was romantically involved with Herb Moses, a top executive at Fannie Mae. Do you see a connection here? I do and so do millions of other people.
So here's the bottom line. The "co-op" the administration is now floating around out there is the same thing as the "public option" or more accurately the "government option". The name has been changed because they think the American people are too stupid to realize that changing the name WON'T change the program. With this in mind, we need to keep the pressure on at the town hall meetings and with writing to our elected representatives. We need to continue to let them know that we are on to them and that they work for us, not the other way around. We need to continue to show up and vocalize our thoughts and concerns. They may try to paint the town hall meetings as organized by insurance companies and downgrade them, but the fact is that the American people by and large have health insurance, are satisfied with it and are angry, confused and frustrated. Why? Because they don't want Obama or any of his political hacks destroying the best health care system in the world (granted it has it faults as nothing is perfect), so he can claim a political victory and continue to swell his already over-inflated ego about his "accomplishments".
One last thought here......those who like to say that the town halls meetings are organized by insurance companies and the anger and frustration is manufactured, need to take a reality check. So what if they are organized! That' their right and the voices being heard in frustration and anger there are REAL and SINCERE!!! By the way, why doesn't the media point out that almost all of Obama's town hall meetings have BUS LOADS of people that are brought there by the liberal side to cheer him on and make a known presence. (Kool-aid drinkers......every one!) I guess it's permissable for the liberals but not for the conservatives huh??? Transparency??? I don't think so!
I personally think they are running scared. I don't believe they EVER thought they would have this tough a time getting their health care plan through and the publc outpouring against the "public option" is un-nerving to them. But while they are attempting to keep it together, I also am struck with the feeling that the Obama administration is a very smart "bully" in a way.
Let me explain! When you watch Obama, you can easily tell that he thinks he is smarter than everyone else. You can see it in the way he holds himself, his gestures and the way he talks. He is arrogant.....and very clever. He desperately wants to be "the president that finally and successfully brought about health care reform" and he is willing to do whatever he needs to do to capture this title. (This by the way, would be another way for him to "stick it" to his former opponent Hillary Clinton who tried hard to be the one that brought that about.)
When looking at his actions and those of the administration to ram this through, you need to aak yourself if their actions are "transparent" like they say they would be. In reality, the answer is NO. Starting with the "public option", there are problems. Watching Sean Hannity last night, there was a guest who I thought put it perfectly. He said, "The public option is really a 'government option'. By terming as a "public option", it makes the general population feel more comfortable with it. It's amazing what a difference just changing a word can make. So now, the Obama administration has this outpouring of resistance against their plan and it bothers them greatly. They don't like it and with the media's help they try to depict the attendees at the town hall meetings as uninformed, uneducated, thugs, astro-turf, irrelevant etc. While doing this, they float a trial balloon to see if the word "co-op" will have a better effect.
Do you see what's happening here? Look at the fact that there are congressional representatives out there that publicly state they will vote for the health care bill REGARDLESS of what their own constituents want.....people who actually were responsible for putting them in place to represent them to begin with. Couple this with the fact that the Obama administration is bound and determined to get what THEY want and you start to see a bully emerging. Remember, this administration thinks we are stupid and they are not. So, now they think that by changing the term "public option" to "co-op" we will all feel better and will allow them get their way. After all, it's a better sounding term than "public option" right?
What is a co-op??? It's defined as a "jointly owned commercial enterprise that produces and distributes goods and services and is run for the benefits of it's owners". So let's say we have a "co-op". Who are the owners going to be? Not the insurance companies because the idea of the "co-op" is to supposedly provide competition with the insurance companies. Then who are the owners? They are YOU, the American people.....or more specifically, the GOVERNMENT since they will be the ones running it. Remember the definition??? It's run for the benefit of the owners. So in this case, the owners, "the "government", will run it for THEIR benefit which actually makes a co-op a "government sponsored enterprise" better known as a GSE.
Want to know how well a GSE can do??? Just take a look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.....they are GSE's. They also have gotten BILLIONS of dollars from us, the taxpaying citizens of this country to keep them afloat. Is that how you want your health care to be run as well???? Barney Frank who backs the health care measures being pushed by this administration also was also tied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who recieved those billions of dollars noted above. Remember.....he was romantically involved with Herb Moses, a top executive at Fannie Mae. Do you see a connection here? I do and so do millions of other people.
So here's the bottom line. The "co-op" the administration is now floating around out there is the same thing as the "public option" or more accurately the "government option". The name has been changed because they think the American people are too stupid to realize that changing the name WON'T change the program. With this in mind, we need to keep the pressure on at the town hall meetings and with writing to our elected representatives. We need to continue to let them know that we are on to them and that they work for us, not the other way around. We need to continue to show up and vocalize our thoughts and concerns. They may try to paint the town hall meetings as organized by insurance companies and downgrade them, but the fact is that the American people by and large have health insurance, are satisfied with it and are angry, confused and frustrated. Why? Because they don't want Obama or any of his political hacks destroying the best health care system in the world (granted it has it faults as nothing is perfect), so he can claim a political victory and continue to swell his already over-inflated ego about his "accomplishments".
One last thought here......those who like to say that the town halls meetings are organized by insurance companies and the anger and frustration is manufactured, need to take a reality check. So what if they are organized! That' their right and the voices being heard in frustration and anger there are REAL and SINCERE!!! By the way, why doesn't the media point out that almost all of Obama's town hall meetings have BUS LOADS of people that are brought there by the liberal side to cheer him on and make a known presence. (Kool-aid drinkers......every one!) I guess it's permissable for the liberals but not for the conservatives huh??? Transparency??? I don't think so!
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Guns and E-Mails.....A New Group?
Don't you mean Guns and Roses you might be saying, referring to the rock group? Nope.....these are a couple of the leading stories today that have been reported by the Associated Press. They also make for some interesting thoughts. Let's start with the e-mails.
These are the unsolicited e-mails from the White House that they vehemently denied sending out. The White House has continually said that no one recieved unsolicited e-mails from them but today White House Online Director Macon Phillips changed course and admitted that this actually had happened. He admitted that such e-mails were in fact sent out, which included a message from top political advisor, David Axelrod, urging support for health care overhaul. But in true political fashion, Phillips also immediately aimed the blame at independent, outside political groups which he didn't name. (Have you ever noticed how hard it is to pin the blame on a particular group or person when you don't have their name or any evidence to back it up?) Phillips stated, "It has come to our attention that some people may have been suscribed to our e-mails lists without their knowledge - likely as a result of efforts of outside groups of all political stripes" (A great way to blame everyone but yourselves huh Mr. Phillips!)
Keep in mind that this comes on the heels of pressure from Darrell Issa,(R-Ca)who is the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee. He also expressed concern about a separate e-mail account that was being used by the White House to track "fishy" claims about the health care overhaul (interpreted..."critics speaking out"). Incidentally, this e-mail account was disabled this afternoon. Now THAT sounds fishy to me! Especially in the light of the admission by White House officials that they had asked the public to share e-mails of critics with them so they could "fight back" and correct the misconceptions.
So what we have here is a classic case of, "We didn't do it......(Uh oh, they know)....Wait a minute, we did it....(quick, get rid of the evidence)..But it was all THEIR fault!" What this tells me as it percolates inside my average American mind is that they, meaning the White House, didn't expect to be caught or called on the carpet for it. Are we really expected to believe that the White House had NO idea this was going on until others started looking into it? I personally don't buy that idea as Washington politicians have their fingers and noses into so many places inside the beltway, that a fly on the wall is probably caught on tape each time it rubs its wings together.
Lastly, this situation represents one more incident in which the lack of integrity or transparency is seen yet again. Rather than have enough intestinal fortitude to admit they did something wrong and apologize for it, it's so much easier and convenient to blame it on someone else.....anyone else!!! What a great set of role models and leaders we have out there at the White House setting an example for our kids. Don't you want your kids to learn these lessons that the politicos are teaching???? I don't.
Now on to the real firepower.....the guns! As you might have seen, about a dozen people that were outside the convention center in Phoenix, AZ while Obama made a speech inside, came with their guns. One of them had a semi-automatic assault rifle. This is the second time this has happened and has sparked some controversy and I want to throw my thoughts in the ring.
For starters, I support the constitution and our right to bear arms. This is one of the fundamental rights given to us by our constitution and is one that is constantly under attack by the anti-gun crowds. As a result of Arizona's adherance to the constitution and what it stands for, that state allows law-abiding citizens to openly carry a weapon in public. For this I applaud the state of Arizona. If Obama has his way, we will eventually lose that right and keep in mind that once you lose a right, it is very difficult if not impossible to get it back. As far as this situation in Phoenix, the gun-toting citizens didn't break any laws, were not disorderly, made no threats and consequently were not arrested. Wow!!! What an unbelievable thought for the liberal crowd out there. Conservatives showed up carrying guns, were well-mannered, obeyed the law and nothing violent happened? How can this be? (Or more likely, "How can we spin this to our benefit?")
When interviewed, the gun owners stated they were simply making a political statement. In a nutshell, they believe we should maintain our right to possess and bear arms, which is completely removed from what Obama wishes to do. I applaud these people for their beliefs and their courage to stand up for what they believe in. If only we all had that kind of conviction and courage.
Now there are those out there that are fully against this and these are the same people that would disarm you, the private citizen, completely if they got the chance. Take for instance a Northern Arizona University political scientist, who called this a "disturbing trend" or Paul Helmke who is president of the Washington, D.C. based Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence. Mr. Helmke is quoted as stating, "When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone". I find his comment particularly interesting because in NONE of the news accounts regarding this rally in Phoenix did I find ANYTHING that stated the weapons were loaded. In fact, I would challenge that they were not loaded. So where did he get his information from??? I truly believe that people like these in Phoenix not only feel strongly about their rights, but as law-abiding citizens have probably educated themselves, taken safety classes and are extremely aware of gun safety. I would be willing to bet as well that they never loaded the weapons as a result of this and only brought them, as they said, as a political statement.
Lastly, a few thoughts I would like to share. Remember the saying, "Guns don't kill people....people kill people!"?? Well I happen to agree with that. I also think that we should ALL be allowed to wear firearms if we so desire......IF, we pass a back-gound check, take mandatory safety classes, complete periodic refresher training snd take the right safety precautions about storage of the weapons and ammo. If this were the case, I believe we would have a lot less violent crime because gun-toting criminals would know they could very well be on the losing end of a situation as a result. Also, when is the last time you heard of a school shooting or gun-man going on a wild killing rampage in Arizona??? Coincidence? I don't think so.
These are the unsolicited e-mails from the White House that they vehemently denied sending out. The White House has continually said that no one recieved unsolicited e-mails from them but today White House Online Director Macon Phillips changed course and admitted that this actually had happened. He admitted that such e-mails were in fact sent out, which included a message from top political advisor, David Axelrod, urging support for health care overhaul. But in true political fashion, Phillips also immediately aimed the blame at independent, outside political groups which he didn't name. (Have you ever noticed how hard it is to pin the blame on a particular group or person when you don't have their name or any evidence to back it up?) Phillips stated, "It has come to our attention that some people may have been suscribed to our e-mails lists without their knowledge - likely as a result of efforts of outside groups of all political stripes" (A great way to blame everyone but yourselves huh Mr. Phillips!)
Keep in mind that this comes on the heels of pressure from Darrell Issa,(R-Ca)who is the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee. He also expressed concern about a separate e-mail account that was being used by the White House to track "fishy" claims about the health care overhaul (interpreted..."critics speaking out"). Incidentally, this e-mail account was disabled this afternoon. Now THAT sounds fishy to me! Especially in the light of the admission by White House officials that they had asked the public to share e-mails of critics with them so they could "fight back" and correct the misconceptions.
So what we have here is a classic case of, "We didn't do it......(Uh oh, they know)....Wait a minute, we did it....(quick, get rid of the evidence)..But it was all THEIR fault!" What this tells me as it percolates inside my average American mind is that they, meaning the White House, didn't expect to be caught or called on the carpet for it. Are we really expected to believe that the White House had NO idea this was going on until others started looking into it? I personally don't buy that idea as Washington politicians have their fingers and noses into so many places inside the beltway, that a fly on the wall is probably caught on tape each time it rubs its wings together.
Lastly, this situation represents one more incident in which the lack of integrity or transparency is seen yet again. Rather than have enough intestinal fortitude to admit they did something wrong and apologize for it, it's so much easier and convenient to blame it on someone else.....anyone else!!! What a great set of role models and leaders we have out there at the White House setting an example for our kids. Don't you want your kids to learn these lessons that the politicos are teaching???? I don't.
Now on to the real firepower.....the guns! As you might have seen, about a dozen people that were outside the convention center in Phoenix, AZ while Obama made a speech inside, came with their guns. One of them had a semi-automatic assault rifle. This is the second time this has happened and has sparked some controversy and I want to throw my thoughts in the ring.
For starters, I support the constitution and our right to bear arms. This is one of the fundamental rights given to us by our constitution and is one that is constantly under attack by the anti-gun crowds. As a result of Arizona's adherance to the constitution and what it stands for, that state allows law-abiding citizens to openly carry a weapon in public. For this I applaud the state of Arizona. If Obama has his way, we will eventually lose that right and keep in mind that once you lose a right, it is very difficult if not impossible to get it back. As far as this situation in Phoenix, the gun-toting citizens didn't break any laws, were not disorderly, made no threats and consequently were not arrested. Wow!!! What an unbelievable thought for the liberal crowd out there. Conservatives showed up carrying guns, were well-mannered, obeyed the law and nothing violent happened? How can this be? (Or more likely, "How can we spin this to our benefit?")
When interviewed, the gun owners stated they were simply making a political statement. In a nutshell, they believe we should maintain our right to possess and bear arms, which is completely removed from what Obama wishes to do. I applaud these people for their beliefs and their courage to stand up for what they believe in. If only we all had that kind of conviction and courage.
Now there are those out there that are fully against this and these are the same people that would disarm you, the private citizen, completely if they got the chance. Take for instance a Northern Arizona University political scientist, who called this a "disturbing trend" or Paul Helmke who is president of the Washington, D.C. based Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence. Mr. Helmke is quoted as stating, "When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone". I find his comment particularly interesting because in NONE of the news accounts regarding this rally in Phoenix did I find ANYTHING that stated the weapons were loaded. In fact, I would challenge that they were not loaded. So where did he get his information from??? I truly believe that people like these in Phoenix not only feel strongly about their rights, but as law-abiding citizens have probably educated themselves, taken safety classes and are extremely aware of gun safety. I would be willing to bet as well that they never loaded the weapons as a result of this and only brought them, as they said, as a political statement.
Lastly, a few thoughts I would like to share. Remember the saying, "Guns don't kill people....people kill people!"?? Well I happen to agree with that. I also think that we should ALL be allowed to wear firearms if we so desire......IF, we pass a back-gound check, take mandatory safety classes, complete periodic refresher training snd take the right safety precautions about storage of the weapons and ammo. If this were the case, I believe we would have a lot less violent crime because gun-toting criminals would know they could very well be on the losing end of a situation as a result. Also, when is the last time you heard of a school shooting or gun-man going on a wild killing rampage in Arizona??? Coincidence? I don't think so.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Advance Care Planning Consultations - H.R. 3200
We have all heard the debates raging around the country about the Advance Care Planning Consultations also known as "End of Life" consultations and if you are anything at all like me, you don't really know which side is correct. Well, in my quest to find out the truth regarding this matter, I have skipped ahead in my reading of the current House Bill to the area concerning this particular issue. I want to know what the bill REALLY says, not just what either side is saying.
Now, for those of you who know me, it comes as no surprise that I am NOT a supporter of the current, sitting president. I personally did not vote for him, will not vote for him in the future and don't trust him as far as I can throw him! I also truly believe that he has effectively hidden who he "really is" as far as character and political desires from the American people. I feel he is quickly unraveling the threads that made this country great so he can transform the US into something he and his ultra-liberal hacks have wanted for years which is a socialist country. I also strongly feel that this is the most corrupt administration EVER to hit 1600 Pennsylvania Street! So, with this in mind, you will be shocked to read (perhaps you had better sit down for this one......) that I have read and scrutinized HR 3200 tonight from pages 425-430 and have discovered that this portion of this bill is nowhere near as bad as it has been characterized. (I know.....some of you are currently sitting with your mouths agape thinking, "Is he really going to side with the President on this one????" The answer is yes and no.
Remember, I don't like or trust the current administration! (Did I make that evident enough above???) But I DO like honesty, integrity and courage. So, it is with great chagrin that I report to you this night that the negative reports about this area of the bill are not completely truthful.
I recently recieved a list of 51 negative points regarding this bill. Using these particular points, I will address each one to support or debunk the statement. In this particular blog entry though, I will only address 4 of the 8 that deal specifically with this topic. I will torture you with the remaining 4 again soon! (Cue the wicked, demonic laugh......!) With this in mind, let's start with Page 425, Lines 4-12: Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of Life. (My take: TRUE) This section does in fact specify, "the term 'advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years." With this in mind, a consultation is in fact going to be mandated at a certain point if one has not been conducted within the past five years. My unanswered question though is this: At what point or under what conditions does this particular requirement kick in and who makes that determination? I have not found the answers to these questions yet.
Page 425, Lines 17-19: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!(My take: PARTIALLY TRUE) According to the bill, a consultation shall include "An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses." Notice that it states "practitioner", not government. A practitioner as defined in this bill is a physician or nurse practitioner (page 428, lines 14-19). My concern with this is that we are talking about legal matters here which should be addressed by someone in the legal profession, not the medical profession. Physicians and nurse practitioners are already overworked just trying to keep up with what they went to school for in the first place.......medicine and giving quality medical care to their patients!!!! To saddle them with the additional requirement of explaining legal documents and terms will only exacerbate the problem by taking valuable time away from their providing MEDICAL care to their patients. This is NOT a good or well-thought out idea!
Page 425, Lines 22-25, Page 426, Lines 1-3: Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death. (assisted suicide). This is just not right!(My take: PARTIALLY TRUE) When they say "This is just not right!", I agree with them. It's not because their point is right but because their "premise" is just not right. The bill states, "The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965). Notice that this is done by the practitioner, not the government. In addition, these are resources that are available to the general public already and have been for quite some time. What these resources actually do is to guide individuals and their families regarding how to set up legal guidance and documentation regarding their desires and wishes for medical care at a time when they may not be able to communicate them to the practitioners. In other words, in my own personal case, I would NOT want to be kept alive as a "vegetable" but would rather be let slip away to go home to my Lord and Savior. By having that stated in a legal document, I can rest assured that if the time comes when I am in that situation, the practitioner has this guidance to show what MY wishes and MY desires are. And guess what? They are REQUIRED to follow them!!! The government has absolutely no say in this matter if I have properly prepared the paperwork (say THAT fast three times....) in advance. This could save my loved ones a great deal of hassle, heartache and expenses by making sure I have taken this step. With this in mind, I would also refer you to Page 426, lines 21 to Page 427, Line 1 in which it states, " the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes. Make sense? It does to me!!!
Page 427, Lines 15-24: Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.(My take: FALSE) I read absolutely NOTHING ANYWHERE that states this. The decision as to whether or not to write up an order for advance care planning is strictly up to the individual. In support of this, I would refer you to Page 429, Line 13 through Page 430. Line 24. In this area, it specifically talks about effectively communicating the INDIVIDUALS preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individuals. NOWHERE does it state or infer in any way that the government mandates the orders or has a say in how your life ends.
So let's wrap up what we've learned today. The bill WILL apparently require an Advance Care Planning Consultation at some point, but that point is not specified. In addition, it appears that once you have a consultation, it will be required at least every five years. (Not sure how I feel about this particular aspect right now.) In this consultation, the individual (patient) and the practitioner (physician or nurse practitioner) will give guidance in the many areas regarding the patient's options for advance care planning to include the legal aspects. (I DON'T think this is a good idea!) If,(notice the "if") the patient desires to draw up an order for advance care planning (there is nothing that states it is mandatory), they can accomplish this with their practitioner. In this order, the patient, not the government expresses their personal wishes and desires regarding their advance care in the event they reach a state where they can't effectively communicate their wishes.
So do I support this bill yet??? NO!!!! There are many problems in just the first 30 pages of the legislation that I noted in an earlier entry. Couple those with the lack of answers noted here, additional non-medical duties heaped on the backs of our already over-worked physicians and nurse-practitioners and I feel it is a recipe for disaster. We also already have the ability to do advance directives and other legal directives such as Durable Power of Attorney's for Healthcare (which not surprisingly since they are LEGAL documents are completed by..........Attorneys!!!) So why do we need another bill that covers this and shifts this responsibility to the health care practitioners? We don't!!!
In my next entry, I will tackle the next 4 concerns and then you can make your own educated decision. But I also urge you not to take my word for it. Check it out yourself. Go to http://waysandmeans.house.gov/ and click on the left side where it says, H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act”. You'll be glad you did!
Now, for those of you who know me, it comes as no surprise that I am NOT a supporter of the current, sitting president. I personally did not vote for him, will not vote for him in the future and don't trust him as far as I can throw him! I also truly believe that he has effectively hidden who he "really is" as far as character and political desires from the American people. I feel he is quickly unraveling the threads that made this country great so he can transform the US into something he and his ultra-liberal hacks have wanted for years which is a socialist country. I also strongly feel that this is the most corrupt administration EVER to hit 1600 Pennsylvania Street! So, with this in mind, you will be shocked to read (perhaps you had better sit down for this one......) that I have read and scrutinized HR 3200 tonight from pages 425-430 and have discovered that this portion of this bill is nowhere near as bad as it has been characterized. (I know.....some of you are currently sitting with your mouths agape thinking, "Is he really going to side with the President on this one????" The answer is yes and no.
Remember, I don't like or trust the current administration! (Did I make that evident enough above???) But I DO like honesty, integrity and courage. So, it is with great chagrin that I report to you this night that the negative reports about this area of the bill are not completely truthful.
I recently recieved a list of 51 negative points regarding this bill. Using these particular points, I will address each one to support or debunk the statement. In this particular blog entry though, I will only address 4 of the 8 that deal specifically with this topic. I will torture you with the remaining 4 again soon! (Cue the wicked, demonic laugh......!) With this in mind, let's start with Page 425, Lines 4-12: Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of Life. (My take: TRUE) This section does in fact specify, "the term 'advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years." With this in mind, a consultation is in fact going to be mandated at a certain point if one has not been conducted within the past five years. My unanswered question though is this: At what point or under what conditions does this particular requirement kick in and who makes that determination? I have not found the answers to these questions yet.
Page 425, Lines 17-19: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!(My take: PARTIALLY TRUE) According to the bill, a consultation shall include "An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses." Notice that it states "practitioner", not government. A practitioner as defined in this bill is a physician or nurse practitioner (page 428, lines 14-19). My concern with this is that we are talking about legal matters here which should be addressed by someone in the legal profession, not the medical profession. Physicians and nurse practitioners are already overworked just trying to keep up with what they went to school for in the first place.......medicine and giving quality medical care to their patients!!!! To saddle them with the additional requirement of explaining legal documents and terms will only exacerbate the problem by taking valuable time away from their providing MEDICAL care to their patients. This is NOT a good or well-thought out idea!
Page 425, Lines 22-25, Page 426, Lines 1-3: Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death. (assisted suicide). This is just not right!(My take: PARTIALLY TRUE) When they say "This is just not right!", I agree with them. It's not because their point is right but because their "premise" is just not right. The bill states, "The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965). Notice that this is done by the practitioner, not the government. In addition, these are resources that are available to the general public already and have been for quite some time. What these resources actually do is to guide individuals and their families regarding how to set up legal guidance and documentation regarding their desires and wishes for medical care at a time when they may not be able to communicate them to the practitioners. In other words, in my own personal case, I would NOT want to be kept alive as a "vegetable" but would rather be let slip away to go home to my Lord and Savior. By having that stated in a legal document, I can rest assured that if the time comes when I am in that situation, the practitioner has this guidance to show what MY wishes and MY desires are. And guess what? They are REQUIRED to follow them!!! The government has absolutely no say in this matter if I have properly prepared the paperwork (say THAT fast three times....) in advance. This could save my loved ones a great deal of hassle, heartache and expenses by making sure I have taken this step. With this in mind, I would also refer you to Page 426, lines 21 to Page 427, Line 1 in which it states, " the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes. Make sense? It does to me!!!
Page 427, Lines 15-24: Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.(My take: FALSE) I read absolutely NOTHING ANYWHERE that states this. The decision as to whether or not to write up an order for advance care planning is strictly up to the individual. In support of this, I would refer you to Page 429, Line 13 through Page 430. Line 24. In this area, it specifically talks about effectively communicating the INDIVIDUALS preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individuals. NOWHERE does it state or infer in any way that the government mandates the orders or has a say in how your life ends.
So let's wrap up what we've learned today. The bill WILL apparently require an Advance Care Planning Consultation at some point, but that point is not specified. In addition, it appears that once you have a consultation, it will be required at least every five years. (Not sure how I feel about this particular aspect right now.) In this consultation, the individual (patient) and the practitioner (physician or nurse practitioner) will give guidance in the many areas regarding the patient's options for advance care planning to include the legal aspects. (I DON'T think this is a good idea!) If,(notice the "if") the patient desires to draw up an order for advance care planning (there is nothing that states it is mandatory), they can accomplish this with their practitioner. In this order, the patient, not the government expresses their personal wishes and desires regarding their advance care in the event they reach a state where they can't effectively communicate their wishes.
So do I support this bill yet??? NO!!!! There are many problems in just the first 30 pages of the legislation that I noted in an earlier entry. Couple those with the lack of answers noted here, additional non-medical duties heaped on the backs of our already over-worked physicians and nurse-practitioners and I feel it is a recipe for disaster. We also already have the ability to do advance directives and other legal directives such as Durable Power of Attorney's for Healthcare (which not surprisingly since they are LEGAL documents are completed by..........Attorneys!!!) So why do we need another bill that covers this and shifts this responsibility to the health care practitioners? We don't!!!
In my next entry, I will tackle the next 4 concerns and then you can make your own educated decision. But I also urge you not to take my word for it. Check it out yourself. Go to http://waysandmeans.house.gov/ and click on the left side where it says, H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act”. You'll be glad you did!
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The New Look of Astro-Turf
Who doesn't like the look of Astro-Turf.........? Always green, looking good, never has to be cut, is always ready when you need it and is incredibly resilient!!! Oh, I forgot one thing ......you WALK all over astro-turf!!!!! I guess this is what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi must have been thinking when she recently refered to outspoken critics at town hall meetings as "Astro-Turf"!!!
I have talked about this a bit before but it is gnawing away at me again like a bad fish taco (and I had a VERY bad experience with one of these in Mexico many years ago). Town hall meetings are happening all over the US and the people of this incredible country are standing up in greater numbers every day. They are using their right to free speech to question, scold and yes, even sometimes yell at members of Congress as they attend the meetings. But guess what? That is their right and it is part of the liberties and freedoms that many people have died to defend in this country. And the liberal members of Congress don't like that at all!
The members of Congress who are determined they are going to pass a health care reform bill whether you like it or not, in spite of not having even read the bill (mostly liberal Democrats but there ARE a few Republicans as well) like to think they know better than the general American citizenry. They truly believe in their hearts that they are better educated, better informed, and much more capable than the average American constituent.....and that SCARES me! It should scare you too. They feel they are "untouchable" and beyond reproach. They believe that we should take what they say at face value, that we shouldn't question them (how DARE we?), put them on the spot and require them to answer to us for their actions. After all....THEY are congressmen and senators while we........well, we're not!
While that may be true, the facts of the matter are this. The American people by and large are smart, hard-working, honest people who want what's best for them, their families and their country. Most are very patriotic (as am I), love what this country stands for and don't want to see it become just another country that fell to a failed economic or social experiment. They are people that have solid views, thoughts, desires and concerns. And above all, they are people that want the opportunity to voice their thoughts, opinions and concerns without being called "un-American, Nazi's, irrelevent or astro-turf"!
By the way........liberals must LOVE Nazis....after all, with few exceptions almost all those who use the term or other related ones to bash others are......hold onto your hats now....LIBERALS! Remember how many times they used such terms of endearment when talking about George "Dub-Yah" Bush?? Remember too.......liberals are the "compassionate, open-minded, progressive ones"......! That's why you can NEVER debate a liberal strictly on the facts without them turning to personal attacks! They ARE compassionate, open-minded and progressive.... as long as you agree with them. If you disagree......watch out! Also, I find it interesting that during the 2008 Presidential campaign, the liberals made a point of saying that their questioning of President Bush's policies and actions were American to the very core. I actually agree with this. However, now that the President is a VERY liberal Democrat, this no longer applies! Anyone who disagrees with, questions or campaigns against the liberal agenda and President Obama's policies is ......yes, that's right......un-American, Nazis, racists, irrelevant.....you get the idea!
I think it is the very height of pomposity, arrogance and ignorance for a politician to degrade and completely disregard the very constituents who voted them into office to represent their best interests. It's even worse when they publicly insult them by calling them names. They have completely forgotten that they are the "employees" and the public at large are the "employers". How would that work for any of us if we did the same in our place of employment? How long would we still be employed if after our employer expresses some concern about something we have been doing or not doing, we blow him or her off, call them degrading names and refer to them as "irrelevent" or "astro-turf"? My guess is that the vast majority of us would be hitting the pavement looking for a new job within the half-hour! So what makes politicians so haughty that they think they can do the same and get away with it? It's time we the American people took back the "power of the people" and the "power of the voting booth" and sent a message to our "employees" that this type of behavior and attitude will NOT be condoned.
Then when the next voting cycle ends for congressional seats, politicians who abuse their constituent base will find themselves being called names.......like "unemployed", "has beens", "political failures" and many others that I'm sure you can all come up with!
I have talked about this a bit before but it is gnawing away at me again like a bad fish taco (and I had a VERY bad experience with one of these in Mexico many years ago). Town hall meetings are happening all over the US and the people of this incredible country are standing up in greater numbers every day. They are using their right to free speech to question, scold and yes, even sometimes yell at members of Congress as they attend the meetings. But guess what? That is their right and it is part of the liberties and freedoms that many people have died to defend in this country. And the liberal members of Congress don't like that at all!
The members of Congress who are determined they are going to pass a health care reform bill whether you like it or not, in spite of not having even read the bill (mostly liberal Democrats but there ARE a few Republicans as well) like to think they know better than the general American citizenry. They truly believe in their hearts that they are better educated, better informed, and much more capable than the average American constituent.....and that SCARES me! It should scare you too. They feel they are "untouchable" and beyond reproach. They believe that we should take what they say at face value, that we shouldn't question them (how DARE we?), put them on the spot and require them to answer to us for their actions. After all....THEY are congressmen and senators while we........well, we're not!
While that may be true, the facts of the matter are this. The American people by and large are smart, hard-working, honest people who want what's best for them, their families and their country. Most are very patriotic (as am I), love what this country stands for and don't want to see it become just another country that fell to a failed economic or social experiment. They are people that have solid views, thoughts, desires and concerns. And above all, they are people that want the opportunity to voice their thoughts, opinions and concerns without being called "un-American, Nazi's, irrelevent or astro-turf"!
By the way........liberals must LOVE Nazis....after all, with few exceptions almost all those who use the term or other related ones to bash others are......hold onto your hats now....LIBERALS! Remember how many times they used such terms of endearment when talking about George "Dub-Yah" Bush?? Remember too.......liberals are the "compassionate, open-minded, progressive ones"......! That's why you can NEVER debate a liberal strictly on the facts without them turning to personal attacks! They ARE compassionate, open-minded and progressive.... as long as you agree with them. If you disagree......watch out! Also, I find it interesting that during the 2008 Presidential campaign, the liberals made a point of saying that their questioning of President Bush's policies and actions were American to the very core. I actually agree with this. However, now that the President is a VERY liberal Democrat, this no longer applies! Anyone who disagrees with, questions or campaigns against the liberal agenda and President Obama's policies is ......yes, that's right......un-American, Nazis, racists, irrelevant.....you get the idea!
I think it is the very height of pomposity, arrogance and ignorance for a politician to degrade and completely disregard the very constituents who voted them into office to represent their best interests. It's even worse when they publicly insult them by calling them names. They have completely forgotten that they are the "employees" and the public at large are the "employers". How would that work for any of us if we did the same in our place of employment? How long would we still be employed if after our employer expresses some concern about something we have been doing or not doing, we blow him or her off, call them degrading names and refer to them as "irrelevent" or "astro-turf"? My guess is that the vast majority of us would be hitting the pavement looking for a new job within the half-hour! So what makes politicians so haughty that they think they can do the same and get away with it? It's time we the American people took back the "power of the people" and the "power of the voting booth" and sent a message to our "employees" that this type of behavior and attitude will NOT be condoned.
Then when the next voting cycle ends for congressional seats, politicians who abuse their constituent base will find themselves being called names.......like "unemployed", "has beens", "political failures" and many others that I'm sure you can all come up with!
Compassionate Release?
This morning as I was drinking my usual two cups of coffee and trying to pry my eyelids open, I was treated to a news story on Fox News about the potential release of Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi. Who is this some of you might be thinking? Is he some Taliban fighter we captured in Afghanistan? A leader of Al Queda in Iraq? The answer is no!
This particular person is the lone person tried and convicted for the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Oh....THAT guy you are now saying and nodding your head as it all floods back into your memory!!! Well, THAT guy was convicted of the bombing and sentenced to life in prison for his role in that extremely tragic terrorist incident. But just as here in the United States, "life in prison" doesn't really mean that anymore. In this case, Scottish officials are considering the early release of this unrepentent terrorist on "compassionate grounds because he is terminally ill with cancer". (Please excuse me while I get a kleenex to dry my eyes......I am so sad for him.......NOT!)
Now I don't know about you but I find this very disturbing. Here is a guy who was involved in planting a bomb on-board a jet that blew up and killed 270 people in a very gruesome way. He showed absolutely NO compassion for any of the victims of this bombing and I have never read anywhere that he has shown any remorse for his actions. He has caused incredible grief and sadness in the lives of the families and friends of the victims and again.....to the best of my knowledge has never shown any remorse. So why should HE be shown any compassion?
This criminal was tried and convicted for his crimes. He was sentenced to "life in prison", although I personally feel the death penalty would have been much more appropriate in this case. (Does Scotland have the death penalty?) You know, an ounce of lead applied gently to the back of the head at the cost of about 2 cents or so. But Scotland, like here in the US, has compassion for criminals. After all, they are people too right?
In my thought process, when someone is convicted of such a heinous crime and is sentenced to "life in prison", that is EXACTLY what he or she should get......LIFE IN PRISON! That means they don't get time off for good behavior, they don't get to write children's books, beg for clemency, have over-paid celebrities plead their worthless case on TV and they certainly don't get out because they have cancer!!! That means he should stay in prison and live out the rest of his miserable days behind the walls and bars of the penal institution unlucky enough to be sharing the air with him while the cancer eats away at him. That means he STAYS there until such time as Allah draws his number and beckons him to come home and recieve his 30 virgins or whatever his "reward" is supposed to be.
Unfortunately, it appears that Scotland is afflicted with the strange disease called "misplaced compassion" as are many places and people here in the US. And to be truthful, I feel really sorry for them because of it. I also feel angry that they would even consider the release of this animal because the innocent victims of Flight 103 never got to fulfill and finish their own lives because of the misguided, sadistic actions of this twisted felon. They had their futures blown away from them in a violent blast while their families, friends and the world were left to grieve, think about what might have been and remember.
Compassionate release??? I don't think so.
This particular person is the lone person tried and convicted for the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Oh....THAT guy you are now saying and nodding your head as it all floods back into your memory!!! Well, THAT guy was convicted of the bombing and sentenced to life in prison for his role in that extremely tragic terrorist incident. But just as here in the United States, "life in prison" doesn't really mean that anymore. In this case, Scottish officials are considering the early release of this unrepentent terrorist on "compassionate grounds because he is terminally ill with cancer". (Please excuse me while I get a kleenex to dry my eyes......I am so sad for him.......NOT!)
Now I don't know about you but I find this very disturbing. Here is a guy who was involved in planting a bomb on-board a jet that blew up and killed 270 people in a very gruesome way. He showed absolutely NO compassion for any of the victims of this bombing and I have never read anywhere that he has shown any remorse for his actions. He has caused incredible grief and sadness in the lives of the families and friends of the victims and again.....to the best of my knowledge has never shown any remorse. So why should HE be shown any compassion?
This criminal was tried and convicted for his crimes. He was sentenced to "life in prison", although I personally feel the death penalty would have been much more appropriate in this case. (Does Scotland have the death penalty?) You know, an ounce of lead applied gently to the back of the head at the cost of about 2 cents or so. But Scotland, like here in the US, has compassion for criminals. After all, they are people too right?
In my thought process, when someone is convicted of such a heinous crime and is sentenced to "life in prison", that is EXACTLY what he or she should get......LIFE IN PRISON! That means they don't get time off for good behavior, they don't get to write children's books, beg for clemency, have over-paid celebrities plead their worthless case on TV and they certainly don't get out because they have cancer!!! That means he should stay in prison and live out the rest of his miserable days behind the walls and bars of the penal institution unlucky enough to be sharing the air with him while the cancer eats away at him. That means he STAYS there until such time as Allah draws his number and beckons him to come home and recieve his 30 virgins or whatever his "reward" is supposed to be.
Unfortunately, it appears that Scotland is afflicted with the strange disease called "misplaced compassion" as are many places and people here in the US. And to be truthful, I feel really sorry for them because of it. I also feel angry that they would even consider the release of this animal because the innocent victims of Flight 103 never got to fulfill and finish their own lives because of the misguided, sadistic actions of this twisted felon. They had their futures blown away from them in a violent blast while their families, friends and the world were left to grieve, think about what might have been and remember.
Compassionate release??? I don't think so.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
My Own Look at the Health Care Bill
I have often been told that the best way to become educated on a subject is to check it out for yourself and take what anyone else says with a grain of salt. I believe that to be very sage advice. So with this in mind, I decided to undertake what probably almost all politicians in Congress have NOT done. I am of course talking about actually READING the bill they are batting around like a cat going after a new toy!
For those of you interested in looking into it yourselves, it can be found at the following website: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xm1.pdf. Keep in mind that this bill is 1018 pages long which answers the question as to why very few, if any, of our elected representatives have read it. After all, they have much more important issues to spend their time on instead of reading a bill that could ostensibly completely overhaul the world's best health care system right? And those pesky angry constituents at the town hall meetings that demand answers????? Let them read it for themselves. And in this part, I agree so that we all know what is going to take place if this bill is enacted this fall.
At this time, I have made it to only page 30! Yes, that's right, page 30, which means it could take quite some time to read through and digest the contents of this bill. (Perhaps I should run for Congress.....after all, I AM doing what they are PAID HANDSOMELY to do! But then again.....I have too many skeletons in my closet!) But I will share with you what I find out as I read through it. I will also include references so you can go check it out as well....don't take my word for it, but look at it yourself and make your decisions from there.
Annual Cost-Sharing Limitation - (Page 29, Para 2A, Lines 4-8 and Para. B, Lines 9-16). In this area, the costs are quoted for an Essential Benefits Package. If you want to see what is included in this package, it can be found starting on Page 26, Line 21 and extends to Page 29, Line 2. According to this bill, the annual cost-sharing limitation will start at $5,000 per person and $10,000 per family. In addition, these amounts will INCREASE EACH YEAR by an annual percentage of the consumer price index. Keep in mind that according to this bill (Page 8. Line 11 through Page 9, Line 3), cost sharing includes deductibles, co-insurance, copayments and similiar charges. It does NOT include premiums, payment differentials for covered services and spending for non-covered services. Now I realize that every person's financial situation is unique, but you need to weigh what you are paying now against what you could pay in the future based on this information. Keep in mind as well that this is designed to provide coverage at a level of approximately 70% of the full value of the benefits. So who pays the remaining 30%?? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. So let's see.....you (or your employer) will pay the premiums first, then you will be responsible for up to $5,000 or $10,000 (which as shown earlier will go up every year) as well as everything else that doesn't fall under the umbrella of coverage. How's that sounding to you so far?
We've all heard a lot of rhetoric as well about who's going to decide what health care we get and how much, but do you REALLY know for certain? Well consider the following. Starting on Page 30, Line 11, the bill specifies who these people, known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, will be. These people will include: the Surgeon General, 9 members appointed by the President (who can not be federal employees or officers), 9 members appointed by the Comptroller General (read, "non-medical number crunchers" who can not be federal employees or officers) and yet another even number of members, not to exceed 8 that ARE federal employees or officers, that are also appointed directly by the President. According to the bill, this Committee must "at least reflect" providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on childen's health. These members will serve for three year terms and make their recommendations as a committee to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
My my initial concern with the above initially stems from the fact that one (1), count them, one (1) practicing physician or health professional is mandated to be on this committee. It does state "providers" but considering the many areas of expertise in medicine, this provider could come from any field. With the exception of the specifically stated requirement that there be at least one practicing physician or other health professional, there is really nothing mandating that the health care providers most needed for consultation on this committee are physicians. I mean in no way to denegrate other areas of expertise in medicine as they are all highly intelligent, educated, dedicated and caring people. I think it is safe to say though that when most people think of the "ultimate health care provider", we think of physicians, not physical therapists, pharmacists or any other type of health care provider that might come to mind.
My second concern here stems from the fact that this bill allows the President to personally appoint 17 people out of a committee of 27. Given this fact, it is very possible if not probable, that these 17 members could and would be picked to ram-rod through whatever the President personally wanted for an outcome. Given the President's influence in the selection of a Surgeon General, that would bring the number to 18 out of 28 or approximately 65% of the committee.
By the way, you will see the word "disparity" and other forms of the word in this bill. In other words, "some people have more than others" or "all is not equal". The way I see it, that is just "natural". It was this type of "disparity" that has been the founding point of such failed experiments such as "socialism" and "communism", where the solution was to take away from those who have worked hard for what they have and give to those who just didn't want to work as hard. In those systems, NOBODY does better and that has been proven over and over again. I personally do not want the insidious by-product of disparity to affect what is currently the best health care system in the world.
So what have I seen today in just the first 30 pages of this extremely laborious bill??? The first is that it is prone to be very expensive....much more expensive I believe than what we are being told. Secondly, with the exception of one mandated currently practicing physician, the door is left open for members of the committee to literally be plucked from any place, any discipline and be placed in a position to determine what health care we should or shouldn't have. Lastly, the fact that the President will be able to "load" the committee with henchmen willing to do his bidding is troubling. This would guarantee him the majority in the committee thereby making any real debate or discussion of valid points a "no go". Doesn't sound good to me. How about you?
For those of you interested in looking into it yourselves, it can be found at the following website: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xm1.pdf. Keep in mind that this bill is 1018 pages long which answers the question as to why very few, if any, of our elected representatives have read it. After all, they have much more important issues to spend their time on instead of reading a bill that could ostensibly completely overhaul the world's best health care system right? And those pesky angry constituents at the town hall meetings that demand answers????? Let them read it for themselves. And in this part, I agree so that we all know what is going to take place if this bill is enacted this fall.
At this time, I have made it to only page 30! Yes, that's right, page 30, which means it could take quite some time to read through and digest the contents of this bill. (Perhaps I should run for Congress.....after all, I AM doing what they are PAID HANDSOMELY to do! But then again.....I have too many skeletons in my closet!) But I will share with you what I find out as I read through it. I will also include references so you can go check it out as well....don't take my word for it, but look at it yourself and make your decisions from there.
Annual Cost-Sharing Limitation - (Page 29, Para 2A, Lines 4-8 and Para. B, Lines 9-16). In this area, the costs are quoted for an Essential Benefits Package. If you want to see what is included in this package, it can be found starting on Page 26, Line 21 and extends to Page 29, Line 2. According to this bill, the annual cost-sharing limitation will start at $5,000 per person and $10,000 per family. In addition, these amounts will INCREASE EACH YEAR by an annual percentage of the consumer price index. Keep in mind that according to this bill (Page 8. Line 11 through Page 9, Line 3), cost sharing includes deductibles, co-insurance, copayments and similiar charges. It does NOT include premiums, payment differentials for covered services and spending for non-covered services. Now I realize that every person's financial situation is unique, but you need to weigh what you are paying now against what you could pay in the future based on this information. Keep in mind as well that this is designed to provide coverage at a level of approximately 70% of the full value of the benefits. So who pays the remaining 30%?? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. So let's see.....you (or your employer) will pay the premiums first, then you will be responsible for up to $5,000 or $10,000 (which as shown earlier will go up every year) as well as everything else that doesn't fall under the umbrella of coverage. How's that sounding to you so far?
We've all heard a lot of rhetoric as well about who's going to decide what health care we get and how much, but do you REALLY know for certain? Well consider the following. Starting on Page 30, Line 11, the bill specifies who these people, known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, will be. These people will include: the Surgeon General, 9 members appointed by the President (who can not be federal employees or officers), 9 members appointed by the Comptroller General (read, "non-medical number crunchers" who can not be federal employees or officers) and yet another even number of members, not to exceed 8 that ARE federal employees or officers, that are also appointed directly by the President. According to the bill, this Committee must "at least reflect" providers, consumer representatives, employers, labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts in care for those with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert on childen's health. These members will serve for three year terms and make their recommendations as a committee to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
My my initial concern with the above initially stems from the fact that one (1), count them, one (1) practicing physician or health professional is mandated to be on this committee. It does state "providers" but considering the many areas of expertise in medicine, this provider could come from any field. With the exception of the specifically stated requirement that there be at least one practicing physician or other health professional, there is really nothing mandating that the health care providers most needed for consultation on this committee are physicians. I mean in no way to denegrate other areas of expertise in medicine as they are all highly intelligent, educated, dedicated and caring people. I think it is safe to say though that when most people think of the "ultimate health care provider", we think of physicians, not physical therapists, pharmacists or any other type of health care provider that might come to mind.
My second concern here stems from the fact that this bill allows the President to personally appoint 17 people out of a committee of 27. Given this fact, it is very possible if not probable, that these 17 members could and would be picked to ram-rod through whatever the President personally wanted for an outcome. Given the President's influence in the selection of a Surgeon General, that would bring the number to 18 out of 28 or approximately 65% of the committee.
By the way, you will see the word "disparity" and other forms of the word in this bill. In other words, "some people have more than others" or "all is not equal". The way I see it, that is just "natural". It was this type of "disparity" that has been the founding point of such failed experiments such as "socialism" and "communism", where the solution was to take away from those who have worked hard for what they have and give to those who just didn't want to work as hard. In those systems, NOBODY does better and that has been proven over and over again. I personally do not want the insidious by-product of disparity to affect what is currently the best health care system in the world.
So what have I seen today in just the first 30 pages of this extremely laborious bill??? The first is that it is prone to be very expensive....much more expensive I believe than what we are being told. Secondly, with the exception of one mandated currently practicing physician, the door is left open for members of the committee to literally be plucked from any place, any discipline and be placed in a position to determine what health care we should or shouldn't have. Lastly, the fact that the President will be able to "load" the committee with henchmen willing to do his bidding is troubling. This would guarantee him the majority in the committee thereby making any real debate or discussion of valid points a "no go". Doesn't sound good to me. How about you?
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Remembering Their Place in Office
For quite some time now, I have been watching what has been happening in this country with great concern. And like many Americans, much more than the media would have you believe, I have felt a growing frustration with the way our Congress and elected representatives at both the state and federal levels have been acting. I have also felt frustrated, like many Americans, that my voice along with countless others are being ignored by the very people that were elected to represent us. And it seems to get worse every day.
An article in todays Press-Enterprise from California's Inland Empire finally got me to a position that I felt I needed to voice my concerns. Having talked to many people regarding what direction our great country is going, I have no doubt that I am certainly not alone but am joined by millions in my thoughts and feelings.
The ongoing debacle over healthcare is the catalyst for today's topic. In an article on page A3 entitled "Town halls heat up over health care", the article states that while attending town hall meetings, members of Congress have been shouted down, hanged in effigy and taunted. The article goes on to say "And adding fuel to the fire, Democratic politicians and White House officials have racheted up the rhetoric. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California accused people at recent protests of carrying signs associating Democratic plans with Nazi swastika and SS symbols. And Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, advised Senate Democrats during a lunch meeting Thursday to hit back at protesters. "If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard." said Messina according to an official who attended the meeting.
What??? The very people who were elected to listen and represent the people of this country are going to "hit back twice as hard"?? Is it just me or does anyone else see something very, very wrong here? Politicians have COMPLETELY lost track of what their job is and even more so, who it is that sent them to Congress to do that job in the first place! Let's just start with the fact that politicians are "public servants". Note the word "servants" in there, meaning simply put they are in their current positions "to serve" their constituents. That means quite simply that they work for us, not the other way around. This should cause them to have some humility when dealing with the very people that elected them in the first place. After all, if it weren't for the public electing them and putting their faith in them to represent their interests, they would still be in the private sector. So continuing with this train of thought, the politicians are in place to represent what the American people want, not what they, the politicians, personally want.
So now we come to the crux of the matter. President Obama and Congress are trying to ramrod a health care bill down the throats of the American people that even THEY, the politicians admittedly haven't read! And the American people don't like it!!!! Many recent polls have shown that the vast majority of Americans are actually satisfied with their health care. I think we would all agree that while our health care system is not perfect (nothing is), that it is still the greatest health care system on earth! This is why you see people from all over the world coming to the United States for health care rather than going to other countries. Keep in mind, many come from countries that have health care systems exactly like what President Obama and Congress are trying to force on us!! If their health care system was so great, why would they spend huge amounts of money to come to this country to get health care?? Do we need to get a handle on insurance and medical costs? The answer is yes, but it must be done with great care and consideration of all factors, not just slapped together in a bunch of back-room, closed door meetings. And this is what the American people are concerned about! They, along with myself, want health care reform that is well thought out, debated, all factors considered, presented to the American people for their thoughts and input and then put into place after all this has been completed and agreed upon.
The anger and frustration being vented at town hall meetings around the country is NOT as many Democratic strategists and pundits would have you believe, from "fringe groups" or organized by lobbying groups. It is instead a sincere outpouring of concern and frustration over an issue that Americans just like you and I feel is taking us in the wrong direction. Americans understand fully that Congress works for us since we elected them in the first place. As such, it is only right that Congress listen to US, to what our concerns are and what the American people really want. When elected officials like Nancy Pelosi fail to do this, it causes frustration. When Congress tries to pass a bill that they haven't even read and then ignore the outcries of concern from the public, it causes anger. Politicians have evolved by and large to the mind-set that they are "better than everyone else", that they are "smarter" and that we should listen to THEM! This could not be further from the truth. This can also be seen in that Congress has exempted themselves from whatever health care bill is ultimately passed. It will NOT apply to them!! Yes, President Obama and Congress will NOT have to get their health care under the same plan they are trying to force on the American people. Again, what is wrong with this picture? As a public servant, elected by the American people to represent them, they need to understand the very basic fact that if something is not good enough for them, then it certainly is not good enough for the American people they represent! Politicians need to come down out of their lofty, ivory towers, listen, remember where they came from, who put them there and why. And they need to realize that the American people are a lot smarter than they are willing to give them credit for. If they don't, the anger and frustration seen at town hall meetings will continue to grow. And when the next election cycle rolls around, Americans will MAKE them listen via the voting booth!
An article in todays Press-Enterprise from California's Inland Empire finally got me to a position that I felt I needed to voice my concerns. Having talked to many people regarding what direction our great country is going, I have no doubt that I am certainly not alone but am joined by millions in my thoughts and feelings.
The ongoing debacle over healthcare is the catalyst for today's topic. In an article on page A3 entitled "Town halls heat up over health care", the article states that while attending town hall meetings, members of Congress have been shouted down, hanged in effigy and taunted. The article goes on to say "And adding fuel to the fire, Democratic politicians and White House officials have racheted up the rhetoric. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California accused people at recent protests of carrying signs associating Democratic plans with Nazi swastika and SS symbols. And Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, advised Senate Democrats during a lunch meeting Thursday to hit back at protesters. "If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard." said Messina according to an official who attended the meeting.
What??? The very people who were elected to listen and represent the people of this country are going to "hit back twice as hard"?? Is it just me or does anyone else see something very, very wrong here? Politicians have COMPLETELY lost track of what their job is and even more so, who it is that sent them to Congress to do that job in the first place! Let's just start with the fact that politicians are "public servants". Note the word "servants" in there, meaning simply put they are in their current positions "to serve" their constituents. That means quite simply that they work for us, not the other way around. This should cause them to have some humility when dealing with the very people that elected them in the first place. After all, if it weren't for the public electing them and putting their faith in them to represent their interests, they would still be in the private sector. So continuing with this train of thought, the politicians are in place to represent what the American people want, not what they, the politicians, personally want.
So now we come to the crux of the matter. President Obama and Congress are trying to ramrod a health care bill down the throats of the American people that even THEY, the politicians admittedly haven't read! And the American people don't like it!!!! Many recent polls have shown that the vast majority of Americans are actually satisfied with their health care. I think we would all agree that while our health care system is not perfect (nothing is), that it is still the greatest health care system on earth! This is why you see people from all over the world coming to the United States for health care rather than going to other countries. Keep in mind, many come from countries that have health care systems exactly like what President Obama and Congress are trying to force on us!! If their health care system was so great, why would they spend huge amounts of money to come to this country to get health care?? Do we need to get a handle on insurance and medical costs? The answer is yes, but it must be done with great care and consideration of all factors, not just slapped together in a bunch of back-room, closed door meetings. And this is what the American people are concerned about! They, along with myself, want health care reform that is well thought out, debated, all factors considered, presented to the American people for their thoughts and input and then put into place after all this has been completed and agreed upon.
The anger and frustration being vented at town hall meetings around the country is NOT as many Democratic strategists and pundits would have you believe, from "fringe groups" or organized by lobbying groups. It is instead a sincere outpouring of concern and frustration over an issue that Americans just like you and I feel is taking us in the wrong direction. Americans understand fully that Congress works for us since we elected them in the first place. As such, it is only right that Congress listen to US, to what our concerns are and what the American people really want. When elected officials like Nancy Pelosi fail to do this, it causes frustration. When Congress tries to pass a bill that they haven't even read and then ignore the outcries of concern from the public, it causes anger. Politicians have evolved by and large to the mind-set that they are "better than everyone else", that they are "smarter" and that we should listen to THEM! This could not be further from the truth. This can also be seen in that Congress has exempted themselves from whatever health care bill is ultimately passed. It will NOT apply to them!! Yes, President Obama and Congress will NOT have to get their health care under the same plan they are trying to force on the American people. Again, what is wrong with this picture? As a public servant, elected by the American people to represent them, they need to understand the very basic fact that if something is not good enough for them, then it certainly is not good enough for the American people they represent! Politicians need to come down out of their lofty, ivory towers, listen, remember where they came from, who put them there and why. And they need to realize that the American people are a lot smarter than they are willing to give them credit for. If they don't, the anger and frustration seen at town hall meetings will continue to grow. And when the next election cycle rolls around, Americans will MAKE them listen via the voting booth!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
